GENERAL SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY 403 



filamentis normalibus obvenientes, transformatione cocci singuli ortae. Est 

 Cladothrix sine vaginis. 



Savageau and Radais (1892, p. 242) revived the old name Oospora 

 for the group. Blanchard (1896, p. 853) discusses this proposition in 

 the following paragraph: 



Sauvageau et Radais rapportent au genre Oospora Wallroth 1833, toute une 

 B^rie de microphytes de tres petite taille, zu'on range communement parmi les 

 Bact^ries: tels sont les genres Streptothrix Cohn 1874, Actinomyces Harz 1877, et 

 Micromyces Max Gruber 1891. lis ont, en effet, une grande ressemblance morpho- 

 logique avec les Oospora vulgaires, maisilss'endistinguement par leurs dimensions 

 beaucoup plus restreintes : Trevisan a cre6 pour eux, avec raison, croyons nous, 

 le genre Nocardia (1889). 



This author recognized six species. Wright (1904, p. 396) suggested 

 the separation of the genus Nocardia from Actinomyces because of 

 differences in morphology both within the tissues and on culture media. 

 He says: 



I do not accept the prevalent belief, based on the work of Bostroem, Gasperini, 

 and others, that the specific infectious agent of actinomycosis is to be found 

 among certain branching microorganisms, widely disseminated in the outer world, 

 which differ profoundly from Actinomyces bovis in having spore-like reproductive 

 elements. I think that these should be grouped together as a separate genus with 

 the name of Nocardia, and that those cases of undoubted infection by them should 

 be called nocardiosis and not actinomycosis. The term actinomycosis should be 

 used only for those inflammatory processess the lesions of which contain the 

 characteristic granules or "drusen." That a Nocardia ever forms these charac- 

 teristic structures in lesions produced by it in man or cattle has not been con- 

 vincingly shown. 



He further says (p. 385) : 



To members of this group the generic names Streptothrix, Nocardia, Cladothrix, 

 and Oospora already have been given by various writers. Of these, in accordance 

 with well-recognized principles of nomenclature, "Nocardia" is the only one that 

 is tenable for the group, if it be made into a separate genus, because the other 

 names have been previously used for plant genera to which these microorganisms 

 clearly do not belong, and they are therefore untenable. 



Against the status of the term "Nocardia" as a generic name for these micro- 

 organisms, it may be urged that its original definition was faulty, chiefly in that 

 the branching of the filaments was described as false, but this objection has no 

 weight in view of the fact that Blanchard has published an accurate description of 

 a number of species of this group and adopted "Nocardia" as the generic name. 



The name Nocardia is rejected by Erwin F. Smith (1905, p. 162). 



